Secondary Navigation

Zionist Racial Science

Zionist Racial Science Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Yale University addresses the flaws in Zionist racial science in a letter to the Society of Histocompatibility and

Message 1 of 1
, Mar 1, 2004

Zionist Racial Science

Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Yale University addresses the flaws in Zionist
racial science in a letter to the Society of Histocompatibility and
Immunology. (More material can be found at
THE AMBASSADORS - OPINIONS - Vol. 5, Issue 1 (January 2002)).

=================

Dear President Bray, President-elect Zeevi, and Society of
Histocompatability and Immunology Officers:

I am asking that you print this in the journal as a response to the
unfair treatment of Dr.Arnaiz-Villena et al. following publication of
their paper and to read and act on my comments.

Arnaiz-Villena et al. published a paper in this journal titled "The
origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other
Mediterranean populations (Human Immunology. 62(9):889-900, 2001). It
is one of at least 13 papers published in this journal by
Dr.Arnaiz-Villena and colleagues (hundreds published elsewhere). The
paper demonstrated with ample evidence the similarity of certain
Jewish populations to Palestinians. After some pressures because the
data appears inconsistent with Zionist ideology and mythology
(including the preposterous claims that Palestinians are recent
immigrants to the "land of Israel" and Jews as a distinct race), the
paper was pulled from web pages and the society took an unprecedented
and in my humble opinion illegal action of penalizing an author
(removing him from the editorial board) to satisfy a political
constituency within the society.

The data provided by the paper is ironically consistent with data
published in the same journal by Israeli scientists (Amar et
al. "Molecular analysis of HLA class II polymorphisms among different
ethnic groups in Israel" Human Immunology, 1999, 60:723-730). Amar et
al. showed that "Israeli Arabs" (Palestinians who are Israeli
citizens) are closer to Sephardic Jews than either is to Ashkenazi
Jews. The data also showed that Ethiopian Jews are genetically very
distant from all. Yet, Amar et al. incredibly concluded that "We have
shown that Jews share common features, a fact that points to a common
ancestry." Amar et al also failed to include Slavic populations in the
study which would have revealed similarities between Ashkenazi and
these populations in the areas around the black Sea (see below).

Unfortunately, misuse of genetics is not new. Francis Galton coined
the term eugenics in 1883 (Greek; eu means "good" and genic derives
from the word for "born"). Galton defined it as "the science of
improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding." At
the height of the eugenics movement in the 1920s, the Encyclopedia
Britannica (1926) entry on eugenics emphasized that the term connoted
a "plan" to influence human reproduction.

Between 1907 and 1960 in the United States at least 60,000 people were
sterilized without their consent pursuant to state laws to prevent
reproduction by those deemed genetically inferior (especially mentally
retarded or those with psychological problems). At the peak of these
programs in the 1930s, about 5,000 persons were sterilized annually.
Based on the American development (especially the works of the
American champion of Eugenics, Harry Hamilton Laughlin), the Eugenics
of the Nazis grew to eclipse and the American system and then to
become even much more and contribute to the mass murder of Jews,
Gypsies and others. These examples (& Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union)
are well studied by societies determined not to repeat these
horrendous laws. Few now believe it is useful or desirable to limit
diversity and enhance ideas of racial purity or protecting the gene
pool of a particular population. So how is this relevant to Zionism
and Jewish nationalism?

The founders of Zionism were Eastern European Jews (Ashkenazi) who
argued that they are fulfilling the ingathering of the Jews to "their
ancestral homelands." Many argued that assimilation and interbreeding
with communities where Jews exist were very dangerous. Many worked
feverishly to establish links (however tenuous) between Ashkenazi Jews
are and the ancient Israelites (and named their new country Israel) as
evidenced by the published works of Bonne-Tamir and others. Much was
spent to explain away the physical differences between Ashkenazi Jews
(light skins, fair smooth hair), and Sephardic (oriental) Jews and
massage the data to fit the pre-ordained conclusions. Here is an
example.

An article titled "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish Populations
Share a Common Pool of Y-chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes" was
published in PNAS, vol. 97, no. 12, June 6,
2000i (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769 ). The article
is
from the laboratory of Dr. Bonne Tamir in Israel and is co-authored
with 11 other authors. PNAS publishes articles based on communication
from respected scientists and not by the traditional peer review
process (although those communicating the article are encouraged to
have them peer reviewed). This particular article was communicated by
Arno G. Motulsky.

Of course Ashkenazi Jews would be closer to Arabs than either is to
the Europeans studied in the PNAS paper. But Ashkenazim are also
clearly closer to Turkic/Slavic than either is to Sephardim or Arab
populations. The authors avoided studying Slavic groups that
researchers have identified as closely related to hypothetical Slavic
ancestral populations of modern Ashkenazi communities. The article
seems to have avoided discussing this particularly problematical issue
and insisted in the conclusion to reiterate the contention made in the
introduction that Jews of today are by and large descendent from the
original Israelites. As Daniel Friedman wrote
( http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/friedman.html ):

"The relative abundances of specific haplotypes within the Ashkenazi
population included in Hammer's study appear to have significant
differences from the reconstructed "ancestral Jewish population" and
"Separate analysis is also necessary to determine the genetic
contribution of the various central Asian Turkic tribes which so
strongly influenced European history."

Italian researches studied many more populations including more
diverse Turkish and Eastern European populations (American Journal of
Human Genetics, 61:1015-1935). The study looked at Y chromosome
polymorphisms (genetic variations) in 58 populations including
European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African. That study clearly
shows that Ashkenazi Jewish samples clustered distinct from Sephardic
Jews and closer to Turkic samples. Overall, the genetic data in that
study were congruent with linguistic distances. The authors concluded
that genetic data do not justify a single origin for the currently
disparate Jewish subpopulations (Ashkenazi and Sephardi). It seems
odd though that authors who are accepting of Zionist claims or are
Jewish make conclusions not even supported by their own data while
authors from other backgrounds based on similar data (showing clear
links of Ashkenazim to Turkic populations) make differing conclusions.

The claims of a "single Jewish origin" flies in the face of incredibly
rich data from historical and archeological sources including:
language (e.g. Yiddish origin and history and absence of use of
Aramaic in ancient Khazar Jewish sources), the conversion of Yemenite
Arab populations to Judaism and Christianity. There is ample
historical evidence that Levantine people and Eastern European Jewish
people do share ancestry as well as evidence for significant
population mixing. Greek and Turkish populations exported their
people throughout the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Asia Minor and the
Levant (e.g. the Ottoman Empire and the Hellenistic
periods). Similarly Slavic populations have exported people into Asia
Minor and the Levant. There was thus tremendous mixing of
populations.

Some studies on Eastern European Jewish people have been used to
support the idea that the Zionist colonization of Palestine
represented a return of a race of Jewish people to their
homeland. Valid scientific research must not be shunned by political
pressure groups intent on preventing any rational discussion and
stifling apparent conflict with the aims of Zionism. Similarly,
scientists should not be allowed to publish statements and conclusions
not supported by the data simply because they appear "politically
correct" at the moment or do not generate an outcry. A statement such
as that by Amir et al. that "We have shown that Jews share common
features, a fact that points to a common ancestry" should not be
allowed to stand. The correct statement from their own data is that
some Jews (Sephardim) are more similar to Palestinians than either
group is to other Jews (Ashkenazim or Ethiopian Jews).

Of course the transition from any kind of genetic evidence to justify
dispossession of the native Palestinians by Ashkenazi immigrants from
Europe is in no way justified regardless of population genetics. After
all, one would have to be totally immune to basic elements of justice
to allow dispossession of people who are native in every sense of the
word and whose ancestors farmed the land for hundreds of years (if not
thousands) based on any kind of perceived separatedness/uniqueness of
gene pools of the new immigrants/settlers. To use "genetic" tools
(regardless of their distortion or validity), to justify denying
Palestinian people the right of self-determination is of course a
travesty of justice. Genetics and eugenics has been used successfully
in many other instances to justify the unjustifiable. Distortions of
the science of genetics was used for racist and ethnic cleansing many
times before. Unfortunately this particular use may not be the last
one either.

Dr. Qumsiyeh correctly surmises the connection of modern Zionist
racial pseudoscience to 19th and early 20th century racial
pseudoscience. For the smoking gun I refer the interested reader to a
series of articles written by Vladimir Jabotinsky in Evreiskaia
zhizn' (Hebrew Life) between 1904 and 1914. I know that advocates of
Zionist racial science like to cite a few articles by Indian
scientists, but these researchers are typically associated with the
Hindutva movement, which has long-standing ties to Jabotinskians.

Dr. Qumsiyeh also addresses some of the flaws in the PNAS paper but
not all.

Hammer and Oppenheim in their studies have consistently and quite
improperly used self-identification in their research to class an
individual as Ashkenazi or Sephardi. Until recently times the
population that is considered Ashkenazi probably consisted of at least
3 genetically distinct subpopulations. The modern concept of
Sephardim is a rather artificial construct that consists of an Ibero-
Berber refugee population and numerous unconnected local communities
throughout N. Africa and the Orient. As these communities were
generally very small and highly endogamous, we should have expected
significant genetic drift among them.

The analysis that Hammer and Oppenheim have carried out implicitly
depends on a Palestinian emigrant founder model. Because we have no
genetic information on the alleged ancient Israelite population, the
Hammer and Oppenheim research begs the question that it is supposed to
address. Dr. Qumsiyeh does not explicitly make the claim, but the
body of research better fits the hypothesis of a major founder
population in Southern Russia that has been exporting population to
Judean/Jewish communities throughout Europe and the Mediterranean
since the 8th century. Refinements to this hypothesis would include
additional founder communities in the Balkans, Mesopotamia and Eastern
Europe.

Hammer is also the primary author of Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests
(Nature ? Volume 385 ?2 January 1997). It is hard to square
Hammer's results current archeological theories about the Exodus
(there was none) and the origins of the "ancient Israelite"
population. Moreover, the alleged founding modal haplotype of Jewish
priesthood is particularly common among Sicilians and Armenians.
Lately, Zionist racial scientists have stopped citing the claims of
the Cohen haplotype because it only inspires derision among genuine
scientists.

Some new theories of the behavior of the Y Chromosome have challenged
the fundamental assumptions of the use of haplotypes in genetic
anthropology.

More recent studies have shown that certain genetic markers common
among Ashkenazim and other European ethnic groups that are
hypothesized to be descendants of Central Asian migrant populations
are indeed common among certain Central Asian population groups but
are not particularly commonin the Syro-Palestinian region.